JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying for modifying the judgment and order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.480 of 1995 and prayed to award further compensation and direct the respondent to deposit the amount with interest. 2. It is the case of the appellants that on 7.3.1995 in the evening at 19.15 from Himmatnagar to Tashiya Road, deceased Maheshbhai was going from Himmatnagar to Ghorwada as a pillion rider on scooter bearing registration No.GJ9A5303. At that time, the opponent No.1 was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and overtook camelcart simultaneously he lost control over his scooter and dashed with camelcart. Therefore Maheshbhai sustained grievous injuries due to the said accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the opponent No.1. It is say of the appellant that the accident took place due to negligence of opponent No.1 and opponent No.1 is solely responsible for the accident. 3. Heard Mr. R.K.Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. R.G.Dwivedi, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 4. Mr. R.K.Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. He has submitted to consider; Rs.1500*40% = 2100 – one third (1/3) for personal expenses = Rs.600/- Rs. 1400*12 = Rs.16,800/- Rs. 16,800*18 (multiplier) = Rs.3,02,400/- Conventional and funeral amount of Rs.40,000/- Lastly, he has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the multiplier of 18 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 when sufficient evidence were produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for. 5. Mr. R.G.Dwivedi, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, is just and proper and do not require any interference. He submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the income as also applied the correct multiplier and the same requires no interference. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and in great details. He submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the income as also applied the correct multiplier and the same requires no interference. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and in great details. I have perused the averments made in the memo of appeal. Before the Tribunal the appellants produced sufficient evidence regarding income and age of the deceased which is just and proper as per arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellants. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant. The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Hence this Court is inclined to award multiplier of 18 as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Keeping that in mind, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 18 is just and proper and under the head of conventional and funeral amount is required to be enhanced upto Rs.40,000/. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. However, considering the facts of the case deduction towards personal expenses at the rate of ; Rs.1500*40% = 2100 – one third (1/3) for personal expenses = Rs.600/- Rs. 1400*12 = Rs.16,800/- Rs. 16,800*18 (multiplier) = Rs.3,02,400/- Conventional and funeral amount of Rs.40,000/- Hence total award comes to Rs.3,42,400/-. The learned Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.1,53,000/. Therefore present appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,89,400/along with 7.5% from the date of application filed before the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Upon deposit of the amount the same shall be disbursed to the appellants on proper verification. Thus the award deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 1. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.